Hernia

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 655–660 | Cite as

Prevention of parastomal hernia by intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement at the time of stoma formation

  • P. Hauters
  • J.-L. Cardin
  • M. Lepere
  • A. Valverde
  • J.-P. Cossa
  • S. Auvray
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a very frequent complication after creation of a permanent colostomy. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and prophylactic effect of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) reinforcement of the abdominal wall at the time of primary stoma formation to prevent PSH occurrence.

Materials and methods

This multicentre prospective study concerned 20 patients operated for low rectal carcinoma between 2008 and 2010. Those patients had an elective and potentially curative abdominoperineal excision associated with IPOM reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a round composite mesh centred on the stoma site and covering the lateralised colon. There were 8 men and 12 women with a median age of 69 years (range: 44–88) and a body mass index of 27 (range: 21–35). The major outcomes analysed in the study were operative time, complications related to mesh and PSH occurrence. Patients were evaluated 1 month after surgery and then every 6 months with physical examination and computed tomography scan (CT-scan). For PSH, we used the classification of Moreno-Matias.

Results

Surgery was performed by laparoscopy in 17 patients and by laparotomy in 3; 12 had an extraperitoneal colostomy, and 8 had a transperitoneal colostomy. The median size of the mesh was 15 cm (range: 12–15). The median operative time was 225 min (range: 175–300), and specific time for mesh placement was 15 min (range: 12–30). One month after surgery, one patient presented with a mild stoma stenosis that was treated successfully by dilatation. With a median follow-up of 24 months (range: 6–42), no other complication potentially related to the use of the mesh was recorded and no mesh had to be removed. On clinical examination, one patient (1/20 = 5 %) had a stoma bulge that appeared a few months after surgery, but was not associated with symptoms. CT-scan evaluation confirmed that all the patients with a normal clinical examination had no PSH and revealed that the patient with the stoma bulge had a stoma loop hernia (type 1a hernia). This patient was followed up for 36 months, no clinical or radiological aggravation of the stoma loop hernia was observed, and he remained totally asymptomatic.

Conclusions

With 95 % of excellent results, IPOM reinforcement at the time of end colostomy formation in selected patients is a very promising procedure. A drawback of this technique is the possibility of developing a stoma loop hernia due to sliding of the exiting colon between the covering mesh and the abdominal wall. However, this risk is low, and no adverse clinical consequence for the patient was noted in our series.

Keywords

Parastomal hernia Prevention Prophylactic mesh IPOM 

References

  1. 1.
    Carne P, Robertson G, Frizelle F (2003) Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 90:784–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tam K, Wei P, Kuo L, Wu C (2010) Systematic review of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. World J Surg 34:2723–2729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wijeyekoon S, Gurusamy K, El-Gendy K, Chan C (2010) Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 211:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson L (2009) Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg 33:118–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J et al (2009) Randomized controlled prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 249:583–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gogenur I, Mortensen J, Harvald T et al (2006) Prevention of parastomal hernia by placement of a polypropylene mesh at the primary operation. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1131–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vijayasekar C, Marimuthu K, Jadhav V et al (2008) Parastomal hernia: is prevention better than cure? Use of preperitoneal polypropylene mesh at the time of stoma formation. Tech Colo Proctol 12:309–313Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moisidis E, Curiskis JI, Brooke-Cowden GL (2000) Improving the reinforcement of parastomal tissues with Marlex® mesh: laboratory study identifying solutions to stomal aperture distortion. Dis Colon Rectum 43:55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muller-Stich B, Mehrabi A, Kenngott A et al (2009) Is a circular polypropylene mesh appropriate for application at the esophageal hiatus? Results from an experimental study in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 23:1372–1378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Ludwig K (2004) Repair of paracolostomy hernias with a prosthetic mesh in the intraperitoneal onlay position: modified Sugarbaker technique. Dis Colon Rectum 47:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sugarbaker PH (1985) Peritoneal approach to prosthetic mesh repair of paracolostomy hernias. Ann Surg 201:344–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson B, De Hingh I, Bleichrodt R (2007) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair is feasible and safe: early results of a prospective clinical study including 55 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 21:989–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Safadi B (2004) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: early results. Surg Endosc 18:676–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muysoms F, Hauters P, Van Nieuwenhove Y, Huten N, Claeys D (2008) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a multi-centre retrospective review and shift in technique. Acta Chir Belg 108:400–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muysoms F (2007) Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias with a modified Sugarbaker technique. Acta Chir Belg 107:476–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansson B, Bleichrodt R, de Hingh I (2009) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate. Surg Endosc 23:1456–1459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mancini G, Mcclusky D, Khaitan L et al (2007) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a non-slit mesh technique. Surg Endosc 21:1487–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leblanc K, Bellanger D, Withaker J, Hausmann M (2005) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 9:140–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayer I, Kyzer S, Chaimoff C (1986) A new approach to primary strengthening of colostomy with Marlex mesh to prevent paracolostomy hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 163:579–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly M, Behrman S (2002) The safety and efficacy of prosthetic hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds. Am Surg 68:524–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janson A, Jänes A, Israelsson L (2010) Laparoscopic stoma formation with a prophylactic mesh. Hernia 14:495–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berger D (2008) Prevention of parastomal hernias by prophylactic use of a specially designed intraperitoneal onlay mesh (Dynamesh IPST). Hernia 12:243–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Junge K, Binnebösel M, Rosch R, Jansen M, Kämmer D, Otto J, Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2009) Adhesion formation of a polyvinylidenfluoride/polypropylene mesh for intra-abdominal placement in a rodent animal model. Surg Endosc 23:327–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Israelsson L (2005) Preventing and treating parastomal hernia. World J Surg 29:1086–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacob B, Hogle N, Durak E, Kim T, Fowler D (2007) Tissue ingroth and bowel adhesion formation in an animal comparative study: polypropylene versus proceed versus parietex. Surg Endosc 21:629–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jänes A, Weisby L, Israelsson L (2011) Parastomal hernia: clinical and radiological definitions. Hernia 15:189–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cingi A, Cakir T, Sever A, Aktan AO (2006) Enterostomy site hernias: a clinical and computerized tomographic evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1559–1563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A et al (2009) The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico-radiological classification. Colorectal Dis 11:173–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leblanc KA, Bellanger DE, Whitaker JM, Hausmann MG (2005) Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair. Hernia 9:140–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Hauters
    • 1
  • J.-L. Cardin
    • 2
  • M. Lepere
    • 3
  • A. Valverde
    • 4
  • J.-P. Cossa
    • 5
  • S. Auvray
    • 6
  1. 1.CH wapi, site Notre-DameTournaiBelgium
  2. 2.Polyclinique du MaineLavalFrance
  3. 3.Clinique Saint-CharlesLa Roche Sur YONFrance
  4. 4.Grand Hôpital DiaconessesParisFrance
  5. 5.Clinique BizetParisFrance
  6. 6.CHP Saint-MartinCaenFrance

Personalised recommendations